# West Indian cricket wins Maths question

The start of the new English cricket season reminds me of that moment a few weeks ago when England were about to win the T20 World Cup.  West Indies batsmen had a mountain to climb from their last over and Ben Stokes, England’s expert “death” bowler, was ready (Stokes had won the game for England in the semi final in similar circumstances). However (and this is a personal opinion) I think Stokes was already imagining his celebration, particularly to his nemesis Marlon Samuels, and his concentration wavered.

Carlos Brathwaite, West Indian batsman, had other ideas and England’s hopes disappeared in a blaze of sixes. His achievement lends itself to a form of GCSE Maths question proving popular with examiners. Namely the “reverse mean” question where pupils have to calculate not the average of a given set of numbers, rather the number needed to change an old mean to a new mean.

England cricket team had an average of 7.75 runs from their 20 overs. West Indies after 19 overs had averaged 7.21 runs per over. How many runs did they need from the last over to win the match ? (i.e. exceed England’s total by 1 run)  (See below for answer)

Although West Indian cricket has struggled of late, the win was eventually going to happen as they have a tremendous competitive spirit. As can be see in this fascinating BBC article about the use of gamification in Jamacan classes. A small company, Edufocal, has set up computer aided classrooms for core subjects like Maths which reward the children for scoring right answers. The company is growing and results are improving. Sponsorship from Virgin’s Branson Centre of Entrepreurship is helping.  Some of my pupils use CGP Mathsbuster which has a similar philosophy – bronze, silver, gold trophies are awarded as pupils move through the questions.  But in Edufocal’s case the prizes are real – cinema tickets etc ( funded by subscription).

And just to keep the Jamaican theme going, one of my favourite artists and songs is Bob Marley’s One Love, the video here being not in Jamaica but London, with a yound Suggs and Paul McCartney.

So, returning to the cricket, the final was featured in the “Cricinfo” website which specialises in statistical coverage of cricket matches and includes graphs which, while not exactly the same as in GCSE, do show the power of using visual techniques to bring numbers to life.

Carlos Brathwaite perhaps wasn’t thinking of solving a GCSE puzzle as he awaited Stokes’s first ball (a glance at the scoreboard may have been easier!) But if he was. here is what he would be calculating:

England’s average (mean) of 7.75 runs per over from 20 overs meant they scored 7.75 x 20 =155 runs in total. So West Indies needed to score 156 to win. But after 19 overs, their average was only 7.21 per over so they had scored 7.21 x 19 = 137 runs.  So from the last over they needed 156 minus 137 equals 19 runs to win. (In fact they scored 3 sixes from 3 balls, and another from the next for good measure, to win with 2 balls left. Bravo!)

# England’s rugby demise – a GCSE lesson.

England’s rugby team failed the test as the Wales match approached its climax. This has lessons for how to approach exams.

England exited the Rugby World Cup after losing to Australia, but for me the damage was done against Wales. I would argue that first loss was associated with “game management” and the parallels with “exam management” techniques are striking as we shall see.

A few weeks before the tournament, most critics would agree that the two teams were well matched. Then a few weeks before the match, Wales lost half their back line to injury, and during the match lost another half. Any small England selection errors were more than neutralised by Welsh misfortune. So duly, with 20 minutes to go, England were cruising, 10 points to the good, chances to extend.  And yet they lost. Why?

In my view, the following: some bad luck with events, but mostly game management.

Harold MacMillan, former U.K. Prime Minister, once famously answered a journalist who had asked what could blow Governments off course: “events, dear boy, events”. England could not cope with events that should have been surmountable.

When Lloyd Williams hopefully kicked cross field, the oval ball could have bounced anywhere but in fact bounced perfectly into the hands of Gareth Davies to score. Bad luck, but it is how you react to events, and England’s game fell apart from there.

Another penalty conceded – more inability to understand what the referee wanted. (Are England penalised more than others despite, or because of, complaining a lot?)  Then the fateful decision to go for the win instead of kicking for goal, not in itself illogical – the kick was missable, and risks sometimes are needed  –  but the decision to throw short at the line out, and risk being pushed into touch, was poor.  Then one final chance, possession lost.

Stuart Lancaster, England coach, is reportedly a fan of the book and philosophy “The Score Takes Care of Itself” , in which Bill Walsh describes his experience as an American NFL Coach, arguing that the preparation, the little things, make the difference in leadership.  Admirable, but no amount of preparation can overcome a coach or player’s inability to react to, or influence, events as they unfold.

Stuart is clearly a fantastic coach who oozes integrity, but before the tournament he said one thing which surprised me along the lines of, “my input to a match ceases just before it starts”. This refers of course to preparation, but did it betray an element of believing that events would follow the natural course, and so for instance substitutions would always follow at the preordained time?

You feel that New Zealand would also have taken the line out instead of the kick, but would have found a way to control it and win, borne of the confidence of winning late many times. They would have found a way to win.

The great sports people and teams keep their game management together as the pressure builds. Think, in contrast, of poor Jean van der Velde, the inexperienced French golfer who found himself only needing to avoid a triple bogey at the last to win the 1999 Open Championship at Carnoustie. In golf, we have “Course Management”, choosing the right clubs for distance, terrain, conditions. Unfortunately, Jean seemed to forget these guidelines, going via railings and rough to water. After removing socks and shoes he holed out for a 7 but lost the playoff,

England had one more chance, against Australia, but their confidence had gone. England lost the 1991 World Cup final against Australia because, by common consent, they listened to the critics and tried to play with flair instead of playing to their pack strength. Has the same thing happened recently?  England have focussed on addressing their perceived weakness – the attacking flair –  but judging by the way the Australian pack won scrum penalties, and had the edge at breakdown, it seems that England have let their forward advantage go.

And so England lost heavily to Australia. it probably would not have mattered had they beaten Wales. And that I would argue was due to Game Management.

Exam management

Think of the Maths exam as that rugby match. You are cruising through a twenty question paper, then just after half way you see a difficult question.  You get stuck, you take too long. You begin to panic, you answer a question on “direct proportion” but forget the principle of feeding back the answer to double check. It turns out to be a wrong answer.

Then you see an algebraic question which requires a quadratic equation to be solved. However much you try, you cannot get the factors. But you haven’t noticed the question says “answer to 3 decimal points” (if so you would realise there are no factors as such, you have to use the quadratic formula).

Then a question involving Pi asks you to leave the answer “exact”, but instead you insert many of its ongoing figures rather than leaving Pi itself in. More marks lost.  You fail to understand what the examiner wants, and what he will penalise you for.

You think you have an easy compound interest question. But you misread that it requires the final amount, not the interest paid. And you waste time doing the manual calculation as well, because you cannot find the “x to the n” button on the calculator.

A question on graphs  is on the next page. You think, “this used to be my strength, but now It is all about Real Life Graphs, with wordy problems about bike rides and punctures. It’s a weakness now, I will have to pass!”

The next one looks easier. But no, it’s on Transformations. I can remember Reflections, but not the one that also begins with “Tr”? It all seemed so easy on my “maths-to-go” and “maths R us” websites. For a moment you remember an old black and white video you saw, what was his name, Brain Clough? “We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately football is played on grass”. You muse that this exam is the reverse, I can do the questions on the computer, unfortunately exams are on paper”.

Then finally you come to the last question. The bell will sound in a few minutes. It looks difficult but features probability, your strength. Decision time. Should I go back and pick up some easy marks by finishing an earlier one, or go for the five marker? You go for the latter.

But what’s this, it starts with probability and bags of sweets, and ends with an algebraic proof of n² – n – 90 = 0.  “I have no clue how these things are connected! I give up”!

In conclusion

Could this happen, or is it just that nightmare where you dream you haven’t done your revision? Well consider this. It has happened and very recently. Thousands of students were approaching their Maths paper’s end – almost injury time so to speak – when they came across exactly that probability question above.  The complaints caused a Twitter storm. Read the story, it went viral,

In fact a reasonable student could have solved this, had they stayed calm at the vital moment andlinked two seperate methods.  Exam management, just like game and course management, can be the difference between achieving your goals and just missing out.  You still made you’re A* to C, but not the A*.  You have the abiility, but the sheer mechanics let you down

The week between the Australia match and the final, irrelevant match against Uruguay will be the longest week of the team’s lives. Plenty of time to reflect on what might have been, just like the Summer Holidays for a student who might think “if only…”.